Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:34:58.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A 9-month retrospective evaluation of the aetiology and management of patients presenting with encephalitis/meningoencephalitis at a South London hospital

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2020

Tehmina Bharucha*
Affiliation:
Kings College Hospital, London, UK
Lina Nashef
Affiliation:
Kings College Hospital, London, UK
Nick Moran
Affiliation:
Kings College Hospital, London, UK Neurosciences, East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, Kent & Canterbury Hospital, Ethelbert Road, CanterburyCT1 3NG, UK
Sue Watkins
Affiliation:
Kings College Hospital, London, UK
David Brown
Affiliation:
Public Health England, London, UK
Mark Zuckerman
Affiliation:
Kings College Hospital, London, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Tehmina Bharucha, E-mail: t.bharucha@doctors.org.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Encephalitis causes high morbidity and mortality. An incidence of 4.3 cases of encephalitis/100 000 population has been reported in the UK. We performed a retrospective evaluation of the diagnosis and management of adults admitted to hospital with a clinical diagnosis of encephalitis/meningoencephalitis. Clinical, laboratory and radiological data were collated from electronic records. Thirty-six patients, median age 55 years and 24 (67%) male were included. The aetiology was confirmed over nine months in 25 (69%) of whom 16 were infections (six viral, seven bacterial, two parasitic and one viral and parasitic co-infection); 7 autoimmune; 1 metabolic and 1 neoplastic. Of 24 patients with fever, 15 (63%) had an infection. The median time to computed topography, magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography (EEG) was 1, 8 and 3 days respectively. Neuroimaging was abnormal in 25 (69%) and 17 (89%) had abnormal EEGs. Only 19 (53%) received aciclovir treatment. Six (17%) made good recoveries, 16 (44%) had moderate disability, 8 (22%) severe disability and 6 (17%) died. Outcomes were worse for those with an infectious cause. In summary, a diagnosis was made in 69.4% of patients admitted with encephalitis/meningoencephalitis. Autoimmune causes are important to consider at an early stage due to a successful response to treatment. Only 53% of patients received aciclovir on admission. Neuroimaging and EEG studies were delayed. The results of this work resulted in further developing the clinical algorithm for managing these patients.

Type
Original Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

In terms of infectious causes, over 100 pathogens have been identified in the aetiology of meningoencephalitis. There are a few national reports defining the epidemiology of encephalitis and there is considerable variation in geographical distribution of infectious causes [Reference Marra, Scheld, Marra, Whiteley and Scheld1]. An incidence of 4.3 cases of encephalitis/100 000 population has been reported in the UK [Reference Granerod and Crowcroft2, Reference Granerod3]. This is likely to be an underestimate, with recognised diagnostic and treatment delays contributing to substandard outcomes [Reference Kelly4Reference Michael6]. There are a number of causes of encephalitis, including infectious, post-infectious, autoimmune, inflammatory and neoplastic, however 30–60% of cases remain undiagnosed [Reference Granerod and Crowcroft2, Reference Solomon7, Reference Glaser8]. The infectious agents responsible are predominantly viruses and bacteria; with herpes simplex encephalitis (HSE) being the most frequently reported infectious aetiology. Amongst the undiagnosed cases, the contribution of autoimmune encephalitis is increasingly acknowledged with improved clinical awareness and access to specialised diagnostic services [Reference Antoine9, Reference Granerod10]. Further, infectious aetiologies are still being identified and causative associations being better understood, with access to novel mechanisms for pathogen discovery such as next generation sequencing [Reference Calistri and Palu11].

Current UK guidelines focus on earlier initiation of aciclovir treatment, within 6 h, carrying out a lumbar puncture (LP) within 12 h and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain within 24–48 h [Reference Solomon7]. Evidence for the role of aciclovir in improving outcomes in HSE is well-established, however, the limitations in effective treatment for other conditions are striking. Despite evidence based treatment and published guidelines, improving outcomes in encephalitis is an ongoing challenge [Reference Backman12].

We aimed to perform a retrospective evaluation of adult patients with encephalitis in a single tertiary care centre, to analyse the aetiology and outcomes, how these align with current guidelines and identify areas for which clinical management might be improved.

Methods

A retrospective evaluation of adults with encephalitis or meningoencephalitis admitted to Kings College Hospital from June 27 2013 to February 28 2014. The study included consecutive patients for whom a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) sample had been collected and received in the virology department during the time period, for which there were available electronic records. All CSF samples underwent testing for HSV types 1 and 2 DNA, VZV DNA, CMV DNA, EBV DNA and enterovirus RNA using in-house multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays [Reference Granerod3]. A further panel of tests was added if the patients were immunocompromised or had specific imaging that suggested HHV-6 DNA, HHV-7 DNA and JCV DNA testing was required using in-house multiplex real-time PCR assays [Reference Granerod3] and HIV-1 RNA using the COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HIV-1 Test, version 2.0 (TaqMan 2.0). Finally, if there was an indicative travel history, appropriate testing (e.g. for West Nile or Japanese encephalitis) were carried out at, St Louis Encephalitis or tick-borne encephalitis were part of the differential diagnosis, samples were sent to the Public Health England Porton Down reference laboratory. All CSF samples were also tested in bacteriology and CSF gram staining, culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing, together with latex agglutination testing, and meningococcal and pneumococcal PCR were also performed when indicated.

The case definition for encephalitis was of altered consciousness, (lethargy, irritability, change in personality or behaviour), as well as two of the following: fever, seizures or focal neurological signs, CSF pleocytosis, specific findings on electroencephalography (EEG) or neuroimaging [Reference Venkatesan13]. The Glasgow Outcome Score was assigned from clinical documentation, if recorded, or by the study investigators using electronic records. Data collection and analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 2013. Ethical approval was discussed with the research ethics facilitator and as this study was observational, retrospective and anonymised, approval was not needed.

Results

Thirty-six patients were identified with encephalitis/meningoencephalitis over the time period, with a median age of 55 (IQR 44–65) years; and 24 (64%) were male. Ethnicity was 27 (75%) White-British; 7 (19%) Black or Black British-African; 1 (3%) Black or Black British other and 1 (3%) Asian or Asian British Indian. Clinical presentation is demonstrated in Figure 1. The median Glasgow Coma Score was 14 (IQR 10–14). Seven (19%) reported recent infections and seven (19%) reported recent travel abroad. Twelve (33%) had underlying immunosuppression; seven (19%) had HIV and two (6%) had recently received chemotherapy. Data on timing and results of investigations is illustrated in Table 1. Fifteen (42%) patients had an abnormal white cell count (WCC) and 23 (64%) had an abnormal C-reactive protein (CRP).

Fig. 1. Clinical presentation.

Table 1. Investigationsa

a Calculated from time of review by a medical practitioner in hospital to time of investigation.

An aetiology was identified in 25 (69%) patients. These included 16 (44%) infectious aetiologies of which 7 (28%) were viral, 7 (28%) bacterial and 2 (8%) parasitic. There was a range of pathogens identified including Neisseria meningitidis, Streptococcus pneumonia, Listeria monocytogenes, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Treponema pallidum, pyogenic infected shunt, herpes simplex virus-2, human immunodeficiency virus, enterovirus, cerebral malaria and toxoplasmosis. There were also 7 (19%) autoimmune (anti-voltage-gated potassium channel and anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate (anti-NMDAR) antibodies), one (3%) neoplastic, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), central nervous system vasculitis and glioblastoma multiforme. The aetiologies of patients with underlying immunocompromise were largely infectious (8/11, 73%), however it is notable that one of these patients had confirmed anti-NMDA receptor antibody encephalitis. The remaining two with underlying immunocompromise remained undiagnosed. Aetiologies have been stratified in Table 2 as per the system published by Granerod et al., in 2010 [Reference Granerod3].

Table 2. Aetiologies presented in categories

Aciclovir was given to 19 (53%) patients on admission. The median duration of aciclovir treatment was 6 (IQR 3–9) days with a range of 0–21. Patients receiving a more prolonged course of 14–21 days fell into the category of either undiagnosed or autoimmune encephalitis. The duration of admission was a median of 32 (IQR 13–59) days. Patient outcome is shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Patient outcome at discharge evaluated by the Glasgow Outcome Score

Discussion

The high morbidity and mortality in encephalitis is well-recognised, with challenges in making an impact on outcomes over the last few decades [Reference Solomon7, Reference Backman12].

The demographics derived from these data show important differences compared to other reports from the UK. The median age was much higher at 55 as compared to 30 years, and a relatively high proportion of ethnic minorities, 25%, and immunocompromised patients at 33% as compared to 15% [Reference Granerod10]. This is likely to reflect local demographics as well as the setting being a large tertiary referral hospital with specialist neurological, neurosurgical and neuropsychiatric departments.

All patients met the case definition and nearly two thirds presented with headache and fever, and one third with seizures. Fever was seen in patients with both infectious and autoimmune encephalitis. It is important to recognize the latter as effective treatment is available.

In the emergency department, a computed topography (CT) brain scan was carried out within a median of 7 (IQR 1–14) h. However, only 10 (28%) had an abnormal CT and it is recognised that CT is not as sensitive as MRI in identifying brain abnormalities in patients with encephalitis [Reference Maschke14]. An MRI, however, was carried out within the 24–48 h time period recommended in current UK guidelines at a median of 14 (IQR 5–23) h. Median time to LP was 12 h, range 1–250, and this is 6 h longer than the recommendation. This is consistent with other reports from the UK of delays in LP, frequently due to the misunderstanding that all patients require brain imaging [Reference Bell15, Reference Brouwer and van de Beek16]. However, there are also complex issues in place surrounding workflow of patients in the emergency department, and these are not solved easily. Undoubtedly further work is needed to improve this locally.

A diagnosis was made in 25 (69%) patients, similar to other recent UK studies, and significantly higher than other studies worldwide [Reference Granerod10]. This may be due to the expertise and resources available, including the fact that almost all had autoantibody testing. In total 8/11, 73% of the cases remaining undiagnosed had autoantibody testing. However, emerging novel techniques for pathogen discovery such as 16S PCR or next-generation sequencing were not available at that time, and are yet to be validated for the routine testing of patients with encephalitis [Reference Stahl17]. Equally, there is ongoing work on point-of-care diagnostic testing that may reduce the time to diagnosis, and implementation of appropriate management [Reference McGill18].

The outcome differed depending on the aetiology: patients with infectious causes had worse outcomes. Patients with infectious aetiologies had a median Glasgow Coma Score of 3 as compared to median 4 of patients with autoimmune disease. There are few data on specific post-encephalitic morbidities in the UK and also on outcomes specific to other causes of encephalitis besides herpes simplex. Survivors of encephalitis may have physical, cognitive, emotional and social difficulties [Reference Ramanuj19]. An outcome study in Sweden reported post-encephalitic epilepsy in 24% of survivors of HSE, representing a 60–90-fold greater risk than the general population. Additionally, a 5–15 and 5–11-fold elevated risk of pulmonary embolism and diabetes mellitus, respectively, were reported. An Austrian study described a high frequency of depressive symptoms among survivors of HSE.

It was concerning that despite guidelines, only 53% received aciclovir. Patients receiving a more prolonged course of 14–21 days fell into the category of either undiagnosed or autoimmune encephalitis. One patient had HSE, but HSV DNA may not be detected in the CSF initially if the LP is carried out too early, or after aciclovir has been given. There is evidence that intrathecal antibody testing may be useful in these cases [Reference Stahl17].

In conclusion, it is important to implement standardised first-line investigations to reduce the proportion of cases of unknown aetiology and have standardised diagnostic algorithms. Multidisciplinary work is needed to understand and tackle obstacles in meeting guidelines. In this study, 24% of acute encephalitis was immune-mediated and early recognition of these patients is important as treatment is available and effective, and delayed treatment leads to worse outcomes.

References

1.Marra, CWR and Scheld, M (2014) Approach to the patient with central nervous system infection. In Marra, C, Whiteley, R and Scheld, M (eds), Infections of the Central Nervous System, 4th Edn.Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, pp. 13.Google Scholar
2.Granerod, J and Crowcroft, NJ (2007) The epidemiology of acute encephalitis. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 17, 406428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Granerod, J et al. (2010) Causality in acute encephalitis: defining aetiologies. Epidemiology & Infection 138, 783800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Kelly, C et al. (2012) Suboptimal management of central nervous system infections in children: a multi-centre retrospective study. BMC Pediatrics 12, 145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Mailles, A et al. (2012) Long-term outcome of patients presenting with acute infectious encephalitis of various causes in France. Clinical Infectious Diseases 54, 14551464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Michael, BD et al. (2010) Acute central nervous system infections in adults – a retrospective cohort study in the NHS North West region. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine 103, 749758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Solomon, T et al. (2012) Management of suspected viral encephalitis in adults – association of British neurologists and British infection association national guidelines. Journal of Infection 64, 347373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Glaser, CA et al. (2006) Beyond viruses: clinical profiles and etiologies associated with encephalitis. Clinical Infectious Diseases 43, 15651577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Antoine, JC (2016) Autoimmune encephalitis: paving the way for early diagnosis. The Lancet Neurology 15, 349350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Granerod, J et al. (2010) Causes of encephalitis and differences in their clinical presentations in England: a multicentre, population-based prospective study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 10, 835844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Calistri, A and Palu, G (2015) Editorial commentary: unbiased next-generation sequencing and new pathogen discovery: undeniable advantages and still-existing drawbacks. Clinical Infectious Diseases 60, 889891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Backman, R et al. (2015) The development of an intervention to promote adherence to national guidelines for suspected viral encephalitis. Implementation Science 10, 37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Venkatesan, A et al. (2013) Case definitions, diagnostic algorithms, and priorities in encephalitis: consensus statement of the international encephalitis consortium. Clinical Infectious Diseases 57, 11141128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Maschke, M et al. (2004) Update on neuroimaging in infectious central nervous system disease. Current Opinion in Neurology 17, 475480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Bell, DJ et al. (2009) Management of suspected herpes simplex virus encephalitis in adults in a U.K. Teaching hospital. Clinical Medicine 9, 231235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Brouwer, MC and van de Beek, D (2018) Viral meningitis in the UK: time to speed up. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 18, 930931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Stahl, JP et al. (2017) Guidelines on the management of infectious encephalitis in adults. Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses 47, 179194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.McGill, F et al. (2018) Incidence, aetiology, and sequelae of viral meningitis in UK adults: a multicentre prospective observational cohort study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 18, 9921003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Ramanuj, PP et al. (2014) Quality of life and associated socio-clinical factors after encephalitis in children and adults in England: a population-based, prospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 9, e103496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Clinical presentation.

Figure 1

Table 1. Investigationsa

Figure 2

Table 2. Aetiologies presented in categories

Figure 3

Table 3. Patient outcome at discharge evaluated by the Glasgow Outcome Score